Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Moore v. Commonwealth of VA, 96-7073 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-7073 Visitors: 28
Filed: Sep. 17, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7073 JERRY WAYNE MOORE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; LINWOOD T. WELLS, JR., Assistant Attorney General of Virginia; COUNTY OF PRINCE WILLIAM, VIRGINIA; CITY OF MANASSAS; PAUL EBERT, Assistant Commonwealth Attorney; WILSON C. GARRISON, Sheriff, Prince William County, Virginia; DAVID C. MABIE, Prince William Circuit Court Clerk; PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT; EDWARD R. FOX, Commonwealth At
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7073 JERRY WAYNE MOORE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; LINWOOD T. WELLS, JR., Assistant Attorney General of Virginia; COUNTY OF PRINCE WILLIAM, VIRGINIA; CITY OF MANASSAS; PAUL EBERT, Assistant Commonwealth Attorney; WILSON C. GARRISON, Sheriff, Prince William County, Virginia; DAVID C. MABIE, Prince William Circuit Court Clerk; PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT; EDWARD R. FOX, Commonwealth Attorney, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Chief District Judge. (CA-96-884-AM) Submitted: September 5, 1996 Decided: September 17, 1996 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerry Wayne Moore, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Moore v. Virginia, No. CA-96-884-AM (E.D. Va. June 28, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer